ABSTRACT
School (PA) are but two examples. Many regular school students along with the retinue of professional and lay people in the community never met a person with a developmental disability. As such, how could it be expected that the public education community, including parents (of both classified and nonclassified students), other students, bus companies, school boards, teachers, taxpayers, police, the medical community, child study teams, and so on, would be equally supportive of inclusion? If not, one must query the overt/covert effects of lack of support as they impact on utilizing CBT in these environments. This is especially true with regard to who are the potential consumers (clients) of CBT interventions, who are the referral sources, who are the active and ancillary therapists, what kind of resources are available to support programming, and so on. Remember, legislation was required to provide for inclusion of a group of individuals who not long ago were professionally categorized as educable, trainable, or neither educable nor trainable. Vestiges of these labels linger today in the form of attributional biases and prejudice.
